I understand that Ed Norton wanted a bigger paycheck, and refused to reprise his role as the Hulk. That was very disappointing for me, but I moved on. But why did they choose Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/Hulk? I think his performance wasn't bad, but it just didn't feel like the character at all to me.

He signed on for 6 more films, so it seems like he is here to stay. Why did they choose Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk?

Him being better than Norton or Bana is just opinion. Honestly, if Ruffalo was in the Incredible Hulk, and Norton was in the Avengers, I bet everyone would be talking about how much better Edward Norton was as the Hulk.

Him being better than Norton or Bana is just opinion. Honestly, if Ruffalo was in the Incredible Hulk, and Norton was in the Avengers, I bet everyone would be talking about how much better Edward Norton was as the Hulk.

And you'd be absolutely right. That's why I just laugh at the people who ***** and moan about recasts being the end of the world, when it's clear that the vast majority of audiences move right along with the switches.

But in reference to Norton, it wasn't that he refused to play Hulk again; it's that he and Marvel butted heads over the direction they wanted to take Hulk and the sequels, so Marvel fired him, point blank.

Imo I thought he played it brilliantly, I liked the way as Bruce he always kept an even keel to his voice, and acting kind of sheepishly. Then he explains as he changes that it's because he's always angry, as though he's always fighting the urge to let go. To me he played that excellent.

I think the nice thing about Ruffalo WAS how 'disinterested' he came across sometimes. He was detatched, and kept at this sort of mellow tone and pace that seemed exactly how someone would be if they were controlling anger issues. You'd have to become detatched and controlled.

It certainly wouldn't make sense for banner to be really 'interested' and hyper and not controlled.

And everything he said just sort of sounded really mattter of fact, which I liked too. He's past the initial freak out of becoming the Hulk and has accepted his 'curse' and is doing the best he can with it.

He was putting up no false pretenses, not worrying about protecting people's feelings/trying to soften anything.

Ruffalo was a great Banner, but Norton was better. Its not even about acting ability, its about the writing behind their respective portrayals. TIH Banner was isolation & pathos. Avengers Banner was quiet cynicism. So [in a heartbeat] I gotta give it to Norton. Ruffalo for me is the Lazenby of the cinematic Banners (Norton being Connery & Bana being Barry Nelson).

Ruffalo wasn't disinterested in playing the role. He was showing disinterest as part of the role. There was a certain world weariness and cynicism about him, because he's been through much and rejected by many. Therefore he's guarded and doesn't want to come across as too passionate about things for fear of being burnt again or bringing out the beast. When Stark treats him like a human being, you can see a sense of acceptance and purpose at being valued and doing something worthwhile.

__________________

Quote:

Anne Hathaway: "You did not just ask me that!! What a forward young man you are!!! My goodness!!"

Ruffalo was a great Banner, but Norton was better. Its not even about acting ability, its about the writing behind their respective portrayals. TIH Banner was isolation & pathos. Avengers Banner was quiet cynicism. So [in a heartbeat] I gotta give it to Norton. Ruffalo for me is the Lazenby of the cinematic Banners (Norton being Connery & Bana being Barry Nelson).

Lazenby? If you think that Ruffalo was great then why would you compare him to the worst of the EON Bond actors?

__________________"Fear is what keeps a man alive in this world of treachery and deceit."

Lazenby? If you think that Ruffalo was great then why would you compare him to the worst of the EON Bond actors?

Are you kidding? Lazenby was a great Bond, played him in one of the best Bond films of all time and tried something new with the character. He just had the problem, that everybody compared him to Connery.
And the worst EON Bond would be Moore. That's not even a question.

__________________

It wasn't Marvel Studios that made me a Marvel Zombie, it was every other movie studio failing at making superhero movies as good as them! ------------------------------

If Ruffalo plays the role for a long time (and is currently the most universally praised), then he could hardly be considered the equivalent of George Lazenby (since Lazenby walked after 1 performance as Bond but some have mistakenly thought he was fired) and Norton can hardly be thought of as the Connery of Banners.

Although he's not a cinematic Banner, I count Bill Bixby as the Connery of the live action Banners.

__________________

Quote:

Anne Hathaway: "You did not just ask me that!! What a forward young man you are!!! My goodness!!"

Edward fits the role more than Mark, and there are many actors out there that have the look of comics/animated movies and series Bruce.

But anyway, it is what it is. Not all the actors are the best option, in my opinion, so we just have to deal with it.

Yeah unfortunately that's just the way it is. But as I said before, if it was the other way around, and Norton was the one to play Banner in the Avengers, people would be praising him saying "he is the best one to date."